Larry Craig asks Court to Withdraw his Guilty Plea
[Guest post by DRJ]
Monday, Larry Craig filed papers in Hennepin County District Court to withdraw his guilty plea on disorderly conduct charges on the basis that “he entered the plea under stress caused by media inquiries into his sexuality” by his hometown newspaper, the Idaho Statesman:
“In a ‘state of intense anxiety’ following his arrest, Craig ‘felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer’ and plead guilty to the disorderly conduct charge in hopes the matter would not be made public, said the court papers filed in Hennepin County District Court.
The filing said Craig panicked and accepted the plea rather than seeking the advice of an attorney. As a result, Craig’s guilty plea was not ‘knowingly and understandingly made,’ and the evidence against him insufficient to support the plea, the papers said.
Craig’s attorney, William Martin, cited pressure from Craig’s hometown newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, which spent months investigating whether Craig engaged in homosexual encounters. Craig has denied such suggestions and accused the newspaper of conducting a ‘witch hunt’.”
Craig must show “manifest injustice” to withdraw his plea. Court officials said his motion will probably be “heard by the same judge who heard the original case, usually at least two weeks after they’re requested.” I don’t know the Minnesota standard for manifest injustice so I can’t say whether this will be successful, but manifest injustice is typically a very difficult standard to meet.
This “The Media Made Me Do It” defense might resonate with some conservatives. However, if a U.S. Senator isn’t able to make a knowing and understanding decision without an attorney present, no one can.
— DRJ
1. Media pressure makes him panic.
2. He wants to be a senator and make life-changing decisions for his country.
Yeesh.
ras (adf382) — 9/10/2007 @ 5:20 pmas a democrat, i hope he gets it set aside. if this goes on long enough, idaho could elect a democrat to the senate next year.
trial strategy question: he gets it set aside and goes to trial. do you put him on, or just bang on the cop as hard as you can on cross, then rest right after the prosecution rests? bear in mind that falsely denying homosexual acts in court is a crime, the prosecution might have a parade of rebuttal gays who’ve gotten to know the senator in men’s rooms, and the prosecution might actually bring a toilet into the courtroom and ask the senator to demonstrate his stance, then measure it with a tape and compare that to the width of the stall in question.
assistant devil's advocate (9c56f6) — 9/10/2007 @ 6:38 pmdo you put him on, or just bang on the cop as hard as you can on cross, then rest right after the prosecution rests?
I would definitely “bang on the cop” hard but with kid gloves lined with cotton. I don’t need to call him a liar or even overzealous, just mistaken. I would definitely spend a lot of time on motion for directed verdict. See this article, from the New York Times of all places. And I would not take the case in the first place if I did not think he would do well on the stand but would instead advise him that his first instinct was the correct one and to just go on with his life.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:00 pmI would definitely “bang on the cop” hard but with kid gloves lined with cotton. I don’t need to call him a liar or even overzealous, just mistaken. NK
Even if the cop is guilty of a political assassination? If Craig truly is not guilty, then that is what this was, and the only possible way for him to clear his name would be to expose the assassin and any conspirators. Anything less would look he’s trying to weasel out on technicalities.
j curtis (ecc9cc) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:57 pmOnly an idiot would make his defense of the senator depend on proving Sgt. Karsnia a liar.
nk is right re the kid gloves. Being scrupulously polite and respectful to the arresting officer gains you credibility and costs you nothing. You would do that even if you did intend to directly attack his credibility, because it’s only on TV shows that pounding your fist and shouting “He’s a liar!” persuades jurors of anything.
There is lots and lots of room for effective cross-examination — chiefly concessions that can be extracted from Sgt. Karsnia through carefully phrased, precise, controlled questions — that don’t require painting him as a liar or even contradicting any of the factual statements (as opposed to conclusions) in his police report. You want to clarify the facts he described so that they can support conclusions other than the ones he reached, and you want to add other facts which he didn’t mention or stress in his report that tend to support those other conclusions.
Any competent defense lawyer would grasp that the way to handle the case was to point toward a closing argument during which you review the evidence and say: “Even if everything Sgt. Karsnia said is true, the facts he testified to don’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements that the prosecution has to establish in order for Sen. Craig to be guilty of either disorderly conduct or peeping.” Your object isn’t to convict the cop of anything, it’s to keep your client from being convicted. Why set yourself a difficult hurdle that you don’t need to jump in order to win?
Beldar (bdd5c6) — 9/10/2007 @ 8:11 pmBeldar has much more at his blog, including his suspicion that Craig may have waived his Fifth Amendment privilege.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/10/2007 @ 8:38 pmI’ve testified in lewd conduct cases many times. In every case I was involved in, the members of the jury easily saw through the defense BS. Some of you watch WAY too much TV. No cop is going to risk his career, pension & prison to put a low grad misdemeanor case on someone. And contrary to previous moronic statements, we are never pressured to make cases. Again, thats TV nonsense.
Retired Vice Cop (dde475) — 9/10/2007 @ 10:00 pmRVC, I’m sure you’ll acknowledge that while some defense lawyers may have been slinging BS, others, with a case like Craig’s anyway, could probably manage to score some legitimate points on cross-examination. For example:
Q: Did Sen. Craig ever ask you for money?
Q: Did you ever ask Sen. Craig for money?
Q: Did you ever discuss anything regarding sex?
Q: You testified that he made eye contact with you when he was peering into your stall, correct?
Q: So he was not continuously staring at your crotch then, was he?
Q: In fact, in your report, you don’t mention him staring at your crotch area at all, do you?
Q: You testified that he was fidgeting with his fingers and looking down at them, correct?
Q: So he was not staring into your stall continuously, was he?
Q: Your report makes no mention of anything else that Sen. Craig was doing while standing three feet from your stall, does it?
Q: Did he ever get closer than three feet?
Q: Your report says nothing about him glancing around the room or checking the door frequently during the two minutes he was standing outside your stall, does it?
Q: Your report says nothing about him making any other effort to hide what he was doing when he was looking intermittently or glancing into your stall, other than perhaps looking down at his fingers occasionally, correct?
Q: So the only possible basis, from what you directly observed, for this jury to conclude that he was acting “surreptitiously” when he was looking into your stall was that he occasionally looked at his own hands, which were fidgeting, is that true?
Q: From where he was standing three feet away, did he have a line of sight to only your stall, or to many stalls to see which ones, if any, were empty?
Q: There are nine stalls there in that men’s room, correct? Could you determine how many of them were occupied from inside your stall, without lying or crouching down on the floor? Did you in fact lie down or crotch down on the floor for that purpose?
An honest officer is going to concede every one of these points. An officer who argues them is going to hurt his credibility. This sort of pattern of conceded points would be extremely useful to the defense in closing argument on the peeping charge.
This is not an indefensible case. I still think it’s more likely than not that Craig would be convicted, because there are other details that are pretty hard for him to square with his assertions that he lacked any criminal intent and that his conduct was misinterpreted. But that’s why both sides were willing to plead it out to the lesser charge, because by doing so, both sides eliminated risks that they otherwise would have faced at trial. That’s how the system works.
Beldar (bdd5c6) — 9/10/2007 @ 10:53 pmI still think it’s more likely than not that Craig would be convicted, because there are other details that are pretty hard for him to square with his assertions that he lacked any criminal intent and that his conduct was misinterpreted.
That’s why you’re building your case on the premise that Craig is guilty. Your line of questioning for the toilet trooper would only be appropriate if your client is guilty. That is the conclusion I’d come to as a juror.
It seems the “head honcho” is also the head honcho of security at the airport who holds dominion over the CCTV cameras. I’ll wager that he won’t find this incident on the CCTV the same way he couldn’t find this prior incident on the CCTV.
Beldar, is it a fact that there were nine stalls not including urinals in that restroom?
j curtis (ecc9cc) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:00 amhttp://web.mac.com/stephanorsak/iWeb/Site/Welcome.html
The prior incident I referred to. I guess I need a tutorial on using the link thing.
Read overview and then his cctv link.
j curtis (ecc9cc) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:05 amYeah, because every cop that works at the Minneapolis knows who Idaho Senator Larry Craig is based solely on the eye, ring finger, and shoe.
*rolls his eyes*
I probably couldn’t reliably pick out one of my state’s Senators (sorry, but Durbin’s face is utterly forgetable to me), and best-case can only point out one or two from other states. Usually those who are media whores (I’m looking at you, Sen Clinton and Reid).
It is, shall we say, unlikely that the cop targeted Craig because he wanted to smear him politically.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 9/11/2007 @ 5:44 amIt is, shall we say, unlikely that the cop targeted Craig because he wanted to smear him politically.
Comment by Scott Jacobs
The cop seems to recognize Craig. He says something like “you come through this airport often, isn’t that correct?”. That is how you ask a question that you already know the answer to.
The Democrats chose a presidential nominee during the last election who once headed a group which voted on assassinating Republican Senators. This was the most credible person the Democrats could find to carry their banner. Let’s not pretend that a Democrat or a group of Democrat politicos or activists wouldn’t stoop to setting up a Republican politician in the men’s room.
If…IF…Craig isn’t guilty then I think there would be something in the cop’s background that would show involvement with leftists. Craig’s lawyers should definitely be looking for that.
One thing this wasn’t was a misunderstanding. That would be way to coincidental with the prerequisite rumor campaign that preceded the arrest. Without the rumors, no one would jump to conclusions about this.
j curtis (ecc9cc) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:15 amBeldar,
Again, with your questions it’s obvious you watch way too may cop & legal shows on TV. A police report is a summary of the incident. It cannot possibly include every minute detail. I’ve been asked far tougher & more detailed questions that the ones you posed. I cop would simply answer the questions yes or no. On redirect the prosecutor can clear up what he feels is needed. You seem to forget the prosecutor also gets to question the officer.
The question I have not seen addressed is how one with their pants around their ankles can slide their foot into another stall against another person. The fact is you can’t do it by accident. It’s impossible.
No single act by Craig amounts to anything. Its the totality of the circumstances that sinks him.
Another person comments comments that Craig was targeted & set up by the police. I’m sure that person sees black helicopters following them too.
Retired Vice Cop (dde475) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:30 amDude…
He’s a freaking lawyer. Tone down the condescension.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:40 amAnother person comments comments that Craig was targeted & set up by the police. I’m sure that person sees black helicopters following them too.
If…IF… it was a targed set up then this would be the worst political assassination in US history, wrap your mind around that. Considering that, you really shouldn’t be so terrified at the prospect of looking into the matter. It should be a required course of action.
j curtis (ecc9cc) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:45 amRetired Vice Cop #13,
Still, cases result in acquittal and motions to suppress are granted. The police officer may be the perfect witness but his testimony has to support the prosecution’s burden of proof and that’s where the lawyers and the judge earn their pay. Beldar is a lawyer but neither Craig’s lawyer nor our law professor. I’m certain that were he retained to cross-examine Ksarnia, you would find his cross-examination flawless. And have there being no cases where you knew you had made your case but the prosecutor “lost” it or didn’t even pursue it?
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:56 amHe’s not being condescending, he’s stating facts. For years I worked as a prosecutor in a courthouse where the majority of vice cases were tried. The prosecutors and the police are very good at doing their jobs.
dave (639416) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:02 amMr. Curtis: The fiddler was convicted of failing to obey lawful police orders, but acquitted on some other counts. I gather he’s appealing. The story of one bicyclist who’s been found to have committed one of the crimes he claims to have been unjustly accused of by other police officers working at this same airport is absolutely irrelevant to Craig’s situation.
I’ve read that there were nine enclosed stalls, yes. On the whole, that fact hurts Craig because it makes it unlikely that he needed to be standing in front of Sgt. Karsnia’s stall for two minutes waiting for it to empty out. Getting a very small concession from Karsnia — to the effect that he couldn’t monitor all the stalls from inside one of them without blowing his cover — is likely the best that Craig’s lawyers could do in trying to raise the possibility during closing argument that most or maybe all were occupied (assuming Craig doesn’t take the stand).
I assure you that the series of questions I posed above would be useful in obtaining an acquittal, regardless of whether Craig took the stand. They might not be sufficient. But they definitely don’t imply that Craig’s guilty of anything. Most of the factual conduct that Karsnia described in the complaint was admitted by Craig in the post-arrest audiotaped interview. That tape is likely to come into evidence. So I repeat: The key to defending him would not be to try to show that Sgt. Karsnia is lying or even mistaken about the basic facts, but rather, that there are alternative interpretations and inferences that aren’t criminal but that explain those facts. The goal is to raise a reasonable doubt — even one (on each charge) will do!
Beldar (bdd5c6) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:13 amAnd since we’re talking about personal experiences: In my last Fourth Amendment case, the sergeant got life and the detective got ten years in a federal prison. They had their own unique view about how seized drugs, guns and money should be divided between them and the evidence locker. None of that was brought up by us in the suppression hearing. We attacked the sufficiency of the affidavit for the warrant on its face and our motion was granted. We reported the discrepancy between what was taken and what showed up on the inventory sheet to their supervisor. Defense lawyers can be very good at their jobs, too.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:17 amRVC (#13), I’ve been the examiner and the cross-examiner of many a police officer, albeit mostly in civil cases instead of criminal cases. And I do know, for example, that not every little detail can be expected to be in the police report.
But I also know that any officer who refuses to acknowledge that the reason policemen write reports is to make a record of every important detail is a liar. Every police officer I’ve ever examined or cross-examined has agreed with that, and you would too. By definition, anything not in the report is therefore something that the police officer thought was unimportant. That’s why I’d be confident enough to ask each of the questions I listed above (#8), plus a whole lot of similar ones.
I don’t disagree with you that the totality of the officer’s testimony might carry the day in this case. If I had to bet one way or the other, my bet is that it would. But it also might not.
And if you’re suggesting that this report and this officer’s likely testimony from it are bullet-proof — that none of his testimony can be effectively challenged — then you, sir, are the one who’s out of touch with reality. Only a very stupid and inexperienced lawyer would fail to score at least some points off Sgt. Karsnia. The question is, could he score enough points to raise a reasonable doubt? And: How might the answer to that question change depending on if Craig took the stand?
Neither you nor I, sir, are in a position to answer those questions with certainty right now. That’s why we have trials, and if you won’t concede that point, people are not going to take anything else you argue seriously. (I do take most of what you argue seriously and treat your opinions here respectfully, if you haven’t gotten so paranoid from other commenters’ criticisms here that you can’t figure that out.)
Beldar (bdd5c6) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:24 amWould a jury trial even be available in a case like this? Or is the judge the fact-finder?
A jury might be dazzled by a great cross-examination of the sergeant, but I don’t know that a judge would. In a court that covers misdemeanors and summary offenses, justice is often dispensed in an assembly-line fashion.
lc (1b1e61) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:36 amBeldar, re #18, paragraph 2 & 3. I agree. However, Craig who is by virtue of his position as a US Senator is very bright guy. He knew the score. Rather than contest the chargers, he plead out. He knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted the case buried. There was always a chance of a not guilty verdict if he went to court.
However, when one considers all the facts and connects the dots with some knowledge of how people in this culture of deviate sexual behavior operate, what Craig was doing was objectionable & inappropriate. Criminal? He plead guilty.
Retired Vice Cop (dde475) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:37 amlc (#21): From what I’ve read of Minnesota procedure, the defendant could demand a six-person jury on a simple misdemeanor count like the disorderly conduct. Not sure if it’s 12 for the “gross misdemeanor” peeping or not. But yes, Craig could ask for a jury. He might choose not to, depending on the reputation and tendencies of the trial judge, who’s been on the bench for quite a few years.
RVC (#22): Yes, we absolutely agree: Currently, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty because he pleaded guilty. (Now that’s going to set off Christoph again.)
Beldar (bdd5c6) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:43 amlc #21,
Beldar kind of beat me to it but Minnesota’s Constitution grants the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases.
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:48 amDid the cop have his pants down around his ankles or was he just sitting on the john with them up? Same for Craig?
jeff (b6d2cc) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:52 amNever said they weren’t. But there seems to be an attitude that if this had gone to trial acquittal would have been a sure thing. It is not. And Beldar’s sample cross-examination has been heard many times before by those who try these cases.
dave (639416) — 9/11/2007 @ 8:10 am18
Acquittal in itself does nothing for Craig. If he is truly innocent then this has to be an attempt to save his reputation.
The easiest thing to understand about this case is why Craig would cop a guilty plea, on the understanding that it wouldn’t be made public, months after the incident actually occurred. He began to believe that this was going to be kept under wraps because it hadn’t been made public in all that time. Pleading not guilty guarantees that the accusation is made public.
j curtis (ecc9cc) — 9/11/2007 @ 10:14 amBeldar
Mr. Curtis: The fiddler was convicted of failing to obey lawful police orders, but acquitted on some other counts. I gather he’s appealing. The story of one bicyclist who’s been found to have committed one of the crimes he claims to have been unjustly accused of by other police officers working at this same airport is absolutely irrelevant to Craig’s situation.
Your reply is a straw man. I never accused the toilet trooper of beating on the guy during the prior incident. I pointed out that Karsnia is in a higher position of authority than some may have been lead to believe. If you read the CCTV link at the site I liked to, it appears that he at least used a rhetorical trick to hide some evidence from the defendant/victim and may have even destroyed all the cctv evidence that would clear the guy’s name. The desperation with which the defendant wanted that video leads me to believe that there was something on the video that would show a different story than security was telling and he would have expected that document of events to be captured on several different cameras.
j curtis (ecc9cc) — 9/11/2007 @ 10:40 amI have to say, I love the conspiracy theories that the cops were leftists who destroyed video, started rumors & were out to smear Craig to prevent his re re election. That is funny!
Retired Vice Cop (dde475) — 9/11/2007 @ 3:44 pm